I wasn't a huge Lara/Tomb Raider fan going into this. What really sold me on the game was that:
A. IGN would NOT stop posting videos, impressions, and other glowing articles telling me how imperative playing this game was.
B. The previews swore by a hard, gritty look at a legend's origins, which sounds like a great story to me.
C. And that, as a 360 owner, this may be as close to the Uncharted series as I could get.

That being said, I just finished up the game and am kind of disappointed. Firstly, the writing was pretty terrible at times. I had read in several reviews that the leap from 'survivalist to killer' in Lara's character was pretty jarring, but that is an understatement. I guess I was hoping for a Ken Levine-style slow open where we become attached to the character and really feel for her plight. In actuality, all we get are a few scenes of uneasiness before getting thrown into headshots and flaming arrows. I, for one, was really astounded by what 343 was able to do with Master Chief's stoic, masked character in Halo 4. If they can do that with a faceless badass in tank armor, why could CD do that with a vulnerable, exposed twenty-year old lost on an island. The comparisons to FarCry 3 have been made, but I feel that they aren't even in the same ballpark. Juvenile though your character may be in FC3, we felt his decisions. We felt the decent into chaos and madness. And that may be because of my next gripe: Structure.

In FC3, and in several other AAA games of late, the game holds our hand to introduce the themes/mechanics, then lets loose. We're on an island - introduce a hub (Shipwreck Beach), then let us drive the story. That being said, I'm all for linear game, as long as it's handled well. It became obvious with the opening cinematic that CD wasn't going to be subtle or stimulating in their storytelling. Lara's opening lines are something to the tune of, "I'm just a girl. But sometimes, something will make us more. Get ready, because I'm about to go through a transformation." So, okay, you aren't going to let us discover the character for ourselves. I get it. But if you're so hammer-to-nail with the plot and character development, let US take the reigns and decide when we want another dose. At least give us a B-Plot to explore when we need a break from the ennui of overwritten exposition. If I were able to explore and piece together things at my own pace, I think I would've cared more for what was happening on screen. Instead, we're on rails virtually the entire time. Sure, we can explore some secret tombs to find some menial artifacts, but what's the point when during the next inevitable cutscene, Sam will explain why you're on the island, that there are some mysteries to figure out, and what may (will) await around the next corner?

I'm open to the wide range of experiences games can offer. After experiencing things like Dear Esther, Limbo, Halo 4, Skyrim, FarCry3, The Walking Dead, etc. I find myself holding game stories to a higher standard. I wanted to feel for Lara's plight, I really did. But in my opinion it was severely mishandled. And no amount of treasure hunting, artifact-collecting, or wall climbing can make up for a tired story or two-dimensional characters. I think I'm really hungry for the next generation. We as gamers have experienced high-quality, entertaining gameplay as well as engaging, emotional stories. We shouldn't settle for something subpar just because it's a large franchise.

And finally, IGN lost some credibility with this one. From the video "Tomb Raider - Will You Love It?", they say: "It seems some people think that the game is just a series of scripted, timed sequences down a point A to point B tunnel. Not so."
Come on, guys, that's EXACTLY what it is! There are collectibles. Yes. But there are collectibles and secret areas in almost every linear video game. There are puzzles, yes. But every integral bit to complete it is wrapped in white and highlights with a button press, so as to eliminate any and all challenge. Why would you guys try so hard to deny what it is? I just don't get it. And in "Lara Croft, the Badass," they try to show the variety and depth of the combat. Yet half of the kills are from scripted moments. It just feels like a cheat to make the game seem like it has way more depth than it actually does. After all, how many times can I strangle a guy with my bow in the exact same canned animation before it grows stale? And to that same point, all of the big, outstanding action set-pieces had already been shown countless times from E3 to IGN's own previews and reviews. Where's the fun in that?

I know this is a rambling mess. Sorry about that. I just wanted to voice some frustration. Please feel free to call bullshit, or add to any of these thoughts. Hopefully someone reads this and thinks back on the game in a different light. I don't know. I'm off to Gamestop to sell this back.

I think $60 is more than enough. And development time doesn't necessarily correlate to my gripes - thoughtful design and an appreciation for the script do.

As for your second point, we'll just have to disagree. I think the medium has evolved to put both story and gameplay on an even scale, and games that sell themselves as having a emotionally provocative and deep story should deliver.

I understand what you are trying to say, but that's just an excuse for a shoddy game in this instance. The titles mentioned in my OP all had similar development times if not shorter, but found a way to deliver on design and story. My $60 was enough to fund these experiences, but for some reason CD needed 40 more dollars to meet this standard?

This is why we continue to get games of this quality - because gamers have a tendency to make excuses instead of looking at a game for what it is (enjoying the good things, but being willing to call bullshit on the aspects that didn't deliver). You don't have to hold the same opinion as me, but I hope if others do they'll voice it. Otherwise, the cycle will continue and we'll just get more of the same.

Saying something is subpar is only an opinion. The game is one of the best to come out (my opinion). I liked the story and didn't find her rapid transformation off beat because she did what she had to do to survive, and that included becoming a combat Marine in 2 shakes. Some would say that she is a natural born killer. A trait that special combat units look for in real life.

There is a lot of creativity to the combat in the game. And that set it apart from most action adventures.

@jshyng: I think you may have unrealistic standards. This is a fantastic game as most people will likely agree but it seems it not to your taste. You are obviously more than 'a little disappointed". I would say the above opinion/rant makes you sound VERY disappointed. Your arguments are not without merit, there is a disconnect between the narrative/cutscenes and the gameplay, and the character development and story could have been deeper and more fleshed out, but overall they do a good job.

The gameplay is not completely linear as you are given options on how you tackle situations/combat be it through stealth, meelee, or various weapons. As for instinct mode that is entirely optional, if you don't like it, don't use it. I appreciated having the assistance.

Finally I believe the comparisons with Far Cry 3 are apt. I enjoyed FC3 but for me TR is a much more enjoyable game with a better story overall. FC3 was good fun but I lost interest 1/2 way through the second island so it can't have been that engaging.

Not sure if you are just playing devil's advocate or trying to stir up trouble with this thread but you are entitled to your opinion. All the best

I understand what you are trying to say, but that's just an excuse for a shoddy game in this instance. The titles mentioned in my OP all had similar development times if not shorter, but found a way to deliver on design and story. My $60 was enough to fund these experiences, but for some reason CD needed 40 more dollars to meet this standard?

This is why we continue to get games of this quality - because gamers have a tendency to make excuses instead of looking at a game for what it is (enjoying the good things, but being willing to call bullshit on the aspects that didn't deliver). You don't have to hold the same opinion as me, but I hope if others do they'll voice it. Otherwise, the cycle will continue and we'll just get more of the same.

Click to expand...

Technology has advanced as well -- the time and work needed to code a game is growing. In the future, I see game projects being collaborated on by different teams, speaking one design language (much like a big movie being farmed out to different studios) in a Fantasia/Heavy Metal (181) fashion. Who knows what may come of it then.

I just finished it. Fan of the series since PS1. Thought it was well done. Spent most of my time off the given route when possible. Hope CD has plans on bringing back Soul Reaver & Legacy of Kain..... Everybody's a critic, I give it a 9.6 out of 10. Once on the spin cycle of my PS3 it was hard to stop playing. The gameplay was incredible, graphics excellent, and voice acting-I agree with IGN. Anyone who doesn't find this enjoyable entertainment needs their head checked. Thank you Crystal Dynamics for a very satisfying game... Now bring Soul Reaver, please...

I just finished it. Fan of the series since PS1. Thought it was well done. Spent most of my time off the given route when possible. Hope CD has plans on bringing back Soul Reaver & Legacy of Kain..... Everybody's a critic, I give it a 9.6 out of 10. Once on the spin cycle of my PS3 it was hard to stop playing. The gameplay was incredible, graphics excellent, and voice acting-I agree with IGN. Anyone who doesn't find this enjoyable entertainment needs their head checked. Thank you Crystal Dynamics for a very satisfying game... Now bring Soul Reaver, please...

Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind another LOK game, but I believe Defiance ended the story. Also Tony Jay (the Elder God and Mortanius VO dude) is dead.

I understand what you are trying to say, but that's just an excuse for a shoddy game in this instance. The titles mentioned in my OP all had similar development times if not shorter, but found a way to deliver on design and story. My $60 was enough to fund these experiences, but for some reason CD needed 40 more dollars to meet this standard?

This is why we continue to get games of this quality - because gamers have a tendency to make excuses instead of looking at a game for what it is (enjoying the good things, but being willing to call bullshit on the aspects that didn't deliver). You don't have to hold the same opinion as me, but I hope if others do they'll voice it. Otherwise, the cycle will continue and we'll just get more of the same.

Click to expand...

Technology has advanced as well -- the time and work needed to code a game is growing. In the future, I see game projects being collaborated on by different teams, speaking one design language (much like a big movie being farmed out to different studios) in a Fantasia/Heavy Metal (181) fashion. Who knows what may come of it then.

Click to expand...

Interesting idea. I guess that would make sense. And in that development model, hopefully more will be demanded of the script. So maybe we'll both win.

I understand what you are trying to say, but that's just an excuse for a shoddy game in this instance. The titles mentioned in my OP all had similar development times if not shorter, but found a way to deliver on design and story. My $60 was enough to fund these experiences, but for some reason CD needed 40 more dollars to meet this standard?

This is why we continue to get games of this quality - because gamers have a tendency to make excuses instead of looking at a game for what it is (enjoying the good things, but being willing to call bullshit on the aspects that didn't deliver). You don't have to hold the same opinion as me, but I hope if others do they'll voice it. Otherwise, the cycle will continue and we'll just get more of the same.

Click to expand...

Technology has advanced as well -- the time and work needed to code a game is growing. In the future, I see game projects being collaborated on by different teams, speaking one design language (much like a big movie being farmed out to different studios) in a Fantasia/Heavy Metal (181) fashion. Who knows what may come of it then.

Click to expand...

I also think we will see even more uses of development tools such as SpeedTree, Havok, Unreal Engine (or other graphical engines) to ease the burden on studio resources. Instead of the studios spending so much money on developing their own tech they can focus on a great story, level design, etc. I would also love to see more story based DLC. You already gave me a great game. Why spend even more money making an iterative sequel? How about a DLC add-on and if you need something on the shelf make a stand alone box as well like GTA IV and charge a little more.

Try programming something. The "easiest" approach is with an unchanging (or adaptive) platform, like the PC.

Click to expand...

I have programmed. I was a comp sci major and work in IT right now. I think it is far easier to program for a specific set of hardware such as a console, especially for optimization, than it is trying to make sure it works on multiple configurations. And with the programming example you could equate the tools as simplifying it similar to how a compiler simplifies writing software. Rather than writing in machine language you are maximizing your time with a programming language and letting the compiler do the work. This may be at the cost of optimization.

I may have missed your point though because I don't see how it invalidates what I said earlier...

Try programming something. The "easiest" approach is with an unchanging (or adaptive) platform, like the PC.

Click to expand...

I have programmed. I was a comp sci major and work in IT right now. I think it is far easier to program for a specific set of hardware such as a console, especially for optimization, than it is trying to make sure it works on multiple configurations. And with the programming example you could equate the tools as simplifying it similar to how a compiler simplifies writing software. Rather than writing in machine language you are maximizing your time with a programming language and letting the compiler do the work. This may be at the cost of optimization.

I may have missed your point though because I don't see how it invalidates what I said earlier...